GOV/MIL Federal Judge Threatens to Punish Imprisoned J6ers by Adding Enhancements to Remaining Convictions if SCOTUS Reverses ‘Obstruction’ Statute

medic38572

TB Fanatic
by Cristina Laila Mar. 28, 2024 9:05 pm

A federal judge is also threatening to punish imprisoned January 6 defendants by adding enhancements to remaining convictions if the US Supreme Court reverses the ‘obstruction’ statute.


The US Supreme Court recently announced it will hear oral arguments in Fischer v. United States and at issue is statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2):


Whoever corruptly—



(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or


(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Fischer v United States this summer which means hundreds of J6 cases could be upended.


Biden’s corrupt DOJ has charged more than 300 J6ers with 18 USC §1512(c)(2). Additionally, two of the four charges against Trump in Jack Smith’s DC case are conspiracy to obstruct so the Supreme Court’s ruling could torpedo the special counsel’s case against Trump as well.


Last week US Attorney from DC Matthew Graves fired a warning shot to the US Supreme Court – and J6ers serving time for 18 USC §1512(c)(2), the ‘obstruction’ statute pending before SCOTUS.


US District Judge for the District of Columbia Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee, is also threatening to add enhancements to remaining convictions if 1512c2 is reversed by the Supreme Court.


Judge Kelly threatened J6 defendant Gilbert Fonticoba, who was recommended a 62-month jail sentence for entering the Capitol building for 3 minutes.


The judge said he will add time to Fonticoba’s sentence if the Supreme Court reverses the ‘obstruction’ statute.


Judge Kelly ultimately sentenced Fonticoba to 48 months for the 1512c2 conviction.


Fonticoba asked Judge Kelly to delay his reporting to federal prison on April 12 pending SCOTUS decision on 1512c2.

View: https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1773462811269636420?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1773462811269636420%7Ctwgr%5E81c6730e7df15711a1b643c6a28fb87ed4571c41%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2024%2F03%2Ffederal-judge-threatens-punish-imprisoned-j6ers-adding-enhancements%2F


 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Any think this action is unconstitutional as it does fit the definition of Ex Post Facto Law
From what I was reading most if not all the people convicted for the January 6, event were denied proper due process of law, that in it self is enough to over turn the convictions and allowed to go home the same day.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Indeed, didn’t we watch this with Gen. Flynn?
Traitors to left and also to the right, Madame DeFarge never forgets..…..:boohoo:

View attachment 467741
TALE of TWO CITIES.

Referenced recently as the contrast between Trump visiting the Police Widow and the Democratic "Gala" at Radio City Music Hall.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.

Of course the book ends with the gallows...

Dobbin
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
That is not going to stand.

It is going to draw some attention to how some Judges cross lines on a regular basis. Pretty sure once a sentence is imposed, that's it. It can't be changed by Political whimsy. If the sentence was conditional upon certain actions to be performed by the convicted and said conditions weren't fulfilled, the deal is off and the convict can be sentenced again.

I'm not a lawyer so that's all supposition and guess work.

If there's someone on here with a degree and experience, please weigh in and clear this up.
 
Last edited:

Sooth

Veteran Member
Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding
Would that be anything like publicly tearing apart an official copy of the State of the Union speech on national television while the President of the United States was giving that speech?
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
How is this not unconstitutional?

The actual act of doing it is unconstitutional see post #8 above.
What this judge said runs counter of what is acceptable from any judge in our country and the Supreme Court justices can issue strongly worded letters of censure to congress and the judge will be removed from the bench and the action will likely keep him from being appointed or elected to the bench anywhere else in the country
 
Last edited:

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
The actual act of doing it is unconstitutional see post #8 above.
What this judge said runs counter of what is acceptable from any judge in our country and the Supreme Court justices can issue strongly worded letters of censure to congress and the judge will be removed from the bench and the action will likely keep him from being appointed or elected to the bench anywhere else in the country
It's a terroristic threat, hence unconstitutional.
 

Elza

Veteran Member
That is not going to stand.
Sure it will.
President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Jackson did not follow through with his threat and did follow the Court ruling. The communist bastards running out country now will not. They will simply ignore the courts and do what ever they damn well please.
 
Top